On Thursday, April 3, 2012, the Barack Obama re-election campaign released The Life of Julia. In it are 12 stages in the life of Julia, a fictional woman used to demonstrate how Obamas policies would help her. Throughout the stages in her life, Julia is depicted as someone who benefits from the programs either created by or funded by Obama. The obvious message is that a vote for Obama will keep the largesse flowing for all, not just fictional Julia.

One very real problem with the Julia concept is that throughout the 12 stages nowhere is it mentioned that Julia ever gives back for any of the benefits she receives. That is particularly true when Julia is 27 years old, when she is 31 years old, when she is 37 years old, when she is 42 years old, and when shes 67 years old.

The ad says that when Julia is 27 years old, she  has worked full-time as a web designer. Nowhere is there a mention of her giving back, to, as Elizabeth Warren says,  pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

The ad continues, Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control . Now, as a man, I cannot put myself in Julias shoes, but I can think of only one reason why she would need birth control  promiscuity (women readers, please help me here). Assuming that I am correct, I (and about half of US citizens) should see some direct benefit from the money we (involuntarily) spent. Does the ad mention that? As (the late) John Belushi used to say on SNL, Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

The ad says that when Julia is 31 years old, she  decides to have a child. Nowhere is a husband mentioned, so the assumption of promiscuity is supported. Again, we taxpayers who are forced to support her decision receive no direct benefits, no giving back. At this time I think it best to say that a vast majority of taxpayers would not want direct benefits from Julia. But thats not the point here. We taxpayers would like to see some direct benefit from money we are paying. But the ad fails to mention how we, who pay for HER decision, will ever receive or even see the benefits.

The ad continues, Throughout her pregnancy, she benefits from maternal checkups, prenatal care, and free screenings under health care reform. Focus on the word free.

First, nothing is free. Someone, somewhere, somehow paid for Julias free services. That is true unless she somehow got the doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and office workers to donate their time, efforts, and supplies to support her decision. And that doesnt include all the other people she had to get to donate time: the cement workers, carpenters, electricians, and roofers who built the office where she received free services, the banker who financed the office, the salespeople who sold all the supplies to build the office, all the people who manufactured the building supplies, or the people who provided transportation to the office. The list is literally endless.

Second, there is no free lunch, as the old saying goes. Some quid pro quo is expected. As the Merriam-Webster dictionary so well puts it, In politics nobody does something for nothing: theres always a quid pro quo involved. The quid pro quo here is rather obvious: Julia (and all like her) should vote for Obama in order to keep all the free services coming.

The ad says that when Julia is 37 years old, Julias son Zachary starts kindergarten. This means that the entire Julia cycle begins anew.

The ad says that when Julia is 42 years old, she,  starts her own web business. Thats great for Julia, but did she design a web page for me or any other taxpayers? The ad continues, President Obamas tax cuts for small businesses like Julias help her to get started. Again, great for Julia, but do we taxpayers see any direct benefit from the tax cuts? Nothing mentions anything about her giving back to any taxpayers who supported her.

The ad says that when Julia is 67 years old, she,  retires. The ad continues, After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably, . There are at least two things wrong with this concept.

First, there is the retire comfortably concept. As can be seen here, many seniors are not able to retire comfortably. Here are two examples:

Three kids by age 25. Where are the baby daddies and why aren’t they paying their child support?

DPS requires me, never married/no kids, to present my social security card to obtain a driver’s license and if I were delinquent in child support payments, would not be able to renew my driver’s license.

Smells like BULLSTALIN to me.

11
posted on 05/08/2012 9:30:52 AM PDT
by a fool in paradise
(Barack Obama has cut and run from what he called "the right war".)

Her one successful web design will be for a government program that will tout the wonders of socialism, and she'll appear before the puppet congress and give an account of her journey from childhood to successful web designer.

The congressional committee will bestow upon her an official obama attagirl award and after a few days of newspaper and radio blurbs, she'll fade into the welfare state until her death, when she will be brought back out a-la Rosa Parks ... remember when?

Everyone will sigh ..

and go on about their business.

12
posted on 05/08/2012 9:32:48 AM PDT
by knarf
(I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)

Throughout the stages in her life, Julia is depicted as someone who benefits from the programs either created by or funded by Obama.

And libtards either are not able to see or just ignore the destructive consequences caused by parasitism, social engineering, redistributionism, social justice, confiscatory taxation, deficit spending, postmodern aid to the neoproletariat, and inflation.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.